Guest Submission: The Global Warming Alarm is Meant to Control and Not Save Humanity

The following was submitted as a guest posting. My rebuttal and comments follow at the end.

CK

The Global Warming Alarm is Meant to Control and Not Save Humanity

Global warming and climate change are the biggest threats facing human society, so say some scientists. But are human activities solely responsible for this problem?

There’s no denying that we have witnessed unusual global climate in the last few years, like the weird San Diego weather in 2015, or 2016 being the hottest year till date. But can we attribute this unusual occurrence only to man-induced industrial activities like burning fossil fuels or vehicular emissions? I bet not.

The answer, in all likelihood, will be no. Scientists, however, have thrusted that fear upon us and have made us think twice before we even rev our scooters. I have been closely reading and staying abreast of climate-related events and news and couldn’t help but notice the exaggerated claims that point heavily towards man-made CO2 emissions.

There are enough research papers on global warming and climate change that justify those who believe it to be a serious threat. Hence, before arriving at a conclusion, I did some thorough research, certainly not limited to mindless comments about global warming being a hoax.

Here’s what I found

Climate scientists from the UK have released a set of “actual data” before it was doctored to support their false claims about global warming. The charts show that the temperatures are actually falling, and the global climate is getting cooler, heading towards a mini ice age.

Supposedly, even NASA has been reporting false climate records for years now as per data computational expert Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert. Veteran Journalist Gunter Ederer reported Ewert’s findings which shows that the last 100 years’ climate data (especially post the WWII) have been altered to show non existent rise in temperatures.

News pieces on ‘soaring temperatures’ and ‘hottest recorded weather in many years’ highlight that scientists blame it all on industrial productions. However, this is probably not justified. Industrial activities have followed a rising trend over the last 150 years and over this period, the average global temperature has fluctuated multiple times as listed below.

1881: 13.8 Degree Celsius

1895: 12.9 Degree Celsius

1905: 14.3 Degree Celsius  

1920: 12.9 Degree Celsius

1930: 13.9 Degree Celsius

1975: 13.0 Degree Celsius

2000: 14.0 Degree celsius

2010: 13.2 Degree Celsius

These numbers are as per the records released by Ewert. Nasa has now reported the 2016 average temperature as 14.8 Degree Celsius, which is debatable. But looking at the above changes, we can expect the number to fall somewhere close to 13.5 Degree Celsius in the next 10 years.

The fluctuating numbers got me wondering about the melting snow caps and the “classic” polar bear clinging on to the last remaining ice berg images used as a sign of threat. There is an explanation to this as well. The Arctic region is the first area prone to be affected by the warmer waters brought in by the Atlantic current’s cyclical shifts. It’s a common phenomenon that slowly melts down the ice for years before forming it back. The images uploaded by the Daily Mail show this variation and an increase in the Arctic ice caps after 2012.  

Controlling People’s Minds

The global warming scare has now turned into a $1.5 Trillion dollar industry which the UN Programs and Governments would be minting through fundings. Millions of tax dollars are flowing into the banks of the UN clean energy programs. They justify nuclear power to be the largest clean energy source that could replace the threat caused by fossil fuel emissions. But what they ignore is the immediate threat of a nuclear accident similar to the Fukushima radiation that could cause irreparable damage to the environment.

The Climate Change industry has grown at a rate of 17% - 24% between 2005 and 2008, and 15% in 2011 alone, as reported by the Climate Change business journal. They use climate threat as a justification for the high priced renewable sector, green buildings and hybrid vehicles.

The robust increase of this industry also accounts for the $1.9 billion dollar climate change consultancy market, with $890 million earned solely in the US.

Climate change deniers do care about the environment

As a citizen of my country, I too am concerned about the environment, and the pollution caused by everyday human activities, but do not believe that it is the sole cause of climate change. There is a difference between caring for the environment and scaring people into believing in climate threats. True environmentalists do not play with people’s fears.

Although we must shift to greener alternatives to contribute to the betterment of our environment, it should not be done at the cost of making people believe a lie. I will keep reading up on the true causes of climatic variations and whether they are really contributing in nearing doomsday.

Author Bio:

Ethan Miller is a private ESL teacher who also works as an online tutor. Apart from his passion for teaching, he loves to write and holds a degree in creative writing. When he is not teaching or writing his book, Miller loves to blog and is a huge fan of educational technology. You can follow Miller on Facebook and Twitter and check out his blog.

REBUTTAL AND COMMENTS

Mr. Miller’s comments are welcome here, but there are many factual problems that are typical among claims made the by the anti-science community. In emails, Mr. Miller stated he believes in global warming, but his views were “thrashed and vividly abused” at a discussion forum. As a result, he researched what the deniers where saying to him and his research led him to the viewpoint expressed above. 

Let’s start at the beginning. In his first line, Mr. Miller states climate change is the most important issue facing humanity “so say some scientists.” No. This is incorrect. Essentially, every single climate scientist agrees that AGW is real and over 92% of all scientists across the board agree with the statement. What this means is anyone who denies the reality of global warming is immediately claiming to be smarter than all of the climate scientists in the world combined. Finding a few online denier sites that provide false arguments and deceitful claims does not trump years of graduate school and professional experience doing research. 

Mr. Miller then “bets not” that human activity is responsible for all of the climate changes we are witnessing. Don’t bet a lot, Mr. Miller. You’d lose. The reality is solar activity is declining. Deniers like to say the climate changes on its own and then leave it to the audience to assume that means the climate is warming on its own. Why can’t the climate be cooling on its own? The reality is solar activity is declining and the climate, if left to itself, would be cooling right now. That means we are not only responsible for the warming above the baseline, we are also responsible for the warming between the cooler temperature that would prevail naturally and the baseline. So, yes, we are responsible. 

Mr. Miller continues with the statement, “Scientists, however, have thrusted that fear upon us…” and states they have made “exaggerated claims” about carbon emissions. I would first note that these are unsupported statements. What does he mean by “thrusted that fear”? What scientists do is research and discovery for the purpose of increasing our understanding. We are not in the business of ‘thrusting fear’ on people, only increased understanding. If the work of scientists causes people to be fearful, it is most likely because people are acting in an irresponsible manner. Medical researchers were not attempting to scare people about the dangers of smoking, they were only trying to make them aware. It was the understanding of the dangers of their harmful habits that made them fearful. Likewise, informing the public about the dangers of climate change and global warming is not an attempt to scare them, it is an effort to make the public understand the science. If you are now scared because of our bad habits, then do something about it. Don’t blame the scientists for informing you we are driving on a dangerous road. It is not knowledge that makes the road dangerous. The road would still be dangerous without any understanding.

Mr. Miller continues by stating, “There are enough research papers on global warming and climate change that justify those who believe it to be a serious threat.” Click on his link and look closely. You should immediately see the serious, fatal flaw in his statement. These are not “research papers.” They are “essays.” A research paper is something that is written after applying the scientific method to scientifically valid data. This paper is then submitted to a refereed journal for review by fellow scientists for accuracy and validity. Only then is it published. Something posted in a blog (including this one) does not meet that standard and is not a research paper. You can say anything you want in an essay and you are not required to produce any supporting science or data. Just opinion. In the above reference to the 99% of climate scientists, the researchers found only one paper out of 24,000 did not support AGW. Stating “there are enough research papers” to justify climate change deniers is not factually correct. There are no research papers to support their claims. 

Wow! This response is getting pretty long and we haven’t even gotten through the first page of Mr. Miller’s submission. This, unfortunately, is pretty typical of anti-science claims. There’s a whole lot of falsehoods and not a lot of truth. Take Mr. Miller’s next comment as a perfect example:

“Climate scientists from the UK have released a set of “actual data” before it was doctored to support their false claims about global warming.” 

Yikes! I could spend an entire day discussing just how false and misleading this one sentence is. Let’s just summarize it by saying it is a prime example of not knowing how scientific instruments work. There is raw data and adjusted data. The reason it is adjusted is because the data is provided with no reference or calibration. Two instruments sitting side-by-side should produce the same result. If they don’t, the data is adjusted in a calibration process. There is nothing nefarious about this. In fact, just the opposite. It is the calibration process that makes the data valid. You cannot use raw data for any scientific work because it means nothing until it is calibrated. I don’t want to get into all of the details here because this posting is already getting too long, but you can read a detailed explanation (from real climate scientists, not bloggers) in this article here. There are many, many more credible explanations of the process. This is just one of them.

This last explanation should cover all of Mr. Miller’s claims involving the temperature record. There is only a problem if you use the raw data. Using the calibrated data, we get this for the world temperature from 1880 to 2014. (Source: NOAA):

Really. Does anyone have any questions after that? By the way, 2015 would top out as the hottest year and 2016 is on track to beat even that one.

Continuing, Mr. Miller states the ice fluctuates through natural cycles and the Arctic sea ice has recovered after the disastrously low minimum of 2012. First, you have to define ‘recover.’ If he means the extent became larger, then that is a correct statement. If he means it returned to a healthy state and stayed there, then the statement is totally false. Here are the facts: the ice extent for 2016 has already become the second lowest extent on record, surpassed only by that 2012 record. Here is the trendline (Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center) for the September sea ice extent (the 2016 number is not yet included but may have bottomed out at 4.137 million square kilometers).

Clearly, the Arctic sea ice is not recovering to a healthy state and any claim to the contrary is simply not true.

Mr. Miller then uses a single, unsupported reference to claim there is a ‘climate change industry’ worth approximately $1.5 trillion per year. As I said, these numbers are not supported and the term ‘climate change industry’ is very vague and includes things such as environmental engineering. By this definition, putting insulation in your attic to reduce your air conditioning bill qualifies as ‘climate change industry’ and you are, somehow, contributing to some international conspiracy. He also, inexplicably, assigns this industry to the UN, the favorite bogeyman of the anti-science crowd. But, if we are going to discuss money, let’s discuss the estimated costs of climate change – approximately 400,000 deaths and $1.2 trillion dollars per year. That study is a few years old. I would expect both numbers to be significantly higher by now.

Mr. Miller concludes by claiming climate change deniers care about the environment. This is like saying a smoker cares about his health. Sorry, no can do. Either you care about the environment and work towards protecting it, or you don’t. You cannot go around rejecting the science, obstructing all efforts to address the problem while spreading the lies, and then claim you care about the environment. No matter how much they object, it is easy to see deniers don’t care about the environment because their words and actions show otherwise.

One last comment, Mr. Miller referred to “mindless comments about global warming being a hoax.” I love this statement. Claims about global warming being a hoax are the ultimate tin-hat moment and shows how utterly incapable deniers are of being able to produce any science to support their claims. Anyone taking even a few minutes would quickly come to the conclusion there is no reality to it.  First, consider how many people would have to be involved in this hoax. The number of ‘climate scientist’ is hard to pin down because that covers such a broad range of specialties. For instance, I am a physicist who does research in climate change. Does that make me a climate scientist? If so, no register anywhere in the world would reflect that. In fact, climate is a mostly geophysical process so a great number of climate scientists are geophysicists. Obviously, biology is also a major feature, so many climate scientists are biologists. You can see how this trend would continue with all sorts of disciplines. How do you go about counting them? We can make some rough estimates based on the number of papers being published. In the above reference to the 99% consensus, the researchers found nearly 70,000 authors published climate research papers over a two-year period. Using those figures, it would be easy to estimate the number of climate scientists is into the hundreds of thousands. Add in support staff, students, interns, etc. and you are talking about over a million people worldwide. Now, imagine that each and every one of these million-plus people are complicit with this hoax and all of them are keeping it secret. And, remember we are talking worldwide, including some countries that don’t like us and have no motive to cooperate with us. Truly, you have the greatest conspiracy in the entire history of mankind. And, the amazing thing is that there isn’t even a single shred of supporting evidence.

Here’s the fundamental truth about the greatest hoax in human history – it isn’t happening. What you have are people who can’t accept reality and make up for that deficiency by cooking up impossible scenarios. Oh, and don’t bother with any evidence. Who needs evidence? Well, scientists do, for starters.

In conclusion (thankfully), Mr. Miller’s submission is full of inaccuracies and false statements. But, that is what the anti-science lobby produces.

 

There Was No 'Pause' in Global Warming

Remember how Christopher Monckton, the Great Lord Denier of anti-science, claimed there was no warming for (insert period of time of your choice)? Read about his claims here, here, and here.

Take a look at the plot of temperature anomalies and tell me there was no warming:

Source: NOAA

Case closed.

August Sets Another Temperature Record

August 2015 was the hottest August ever recorded with an average temperature .88 degrees C (1.58 F) above the 20th century average. It tied with January 2007 as the month with the third largest temperature departure ever recorded. August had the highest sea surface average temperature ever recorded.

August is the sixth month to break it's monthly record this year, including February, March, May, June, and July.

So far, 2015 has six hottest months, one second hottest months, and one third hottest month ever recorded, not to mention the hottest of all 1628 measured months. 2015 already has five of the ten largest temperature departures above the average. It is a mere formality to wait until January to declare 2015 as the hottest year ever recorded.

For the last 12 months, the tally is:

August 2015 was the hottest August ever recorded;

July 2015 was the hottest July (and hottest any month) ever recorded;

June 2015 was the hottest June ever recorded;

May 2015 was the hottest May ever recorded;

April 2015 was tied for the third hottest April ever recorded;

March 2015 was the hottest March ever recorded;

February 2015 was the hottest February ever recorded;

January 2015 was the second hottest January ever recorded;

December 2014 was the hottest December ever recorded;

November 2014 was the 7th hottest November ever recorded;

October 2014 was the hottest October ever recorded;

September 2014 was the hottest September ever recorded.

Adding up the score for the last 12 months gives us: one 7th hottest month, one 3rd hottest month, one 2nd hottest month, and nine hottest months ever.

More Scientists Comment On Tom Harris' Deceptions

Turns out I'm not the only one stepping up to comment on Tom Harris' silly editorial on global temperature. Take a look here. The facts are in - Harris continues to have zero credibility.

Tom Harris' Lies About The Temperature Record

Fossil fuel-supported deniers are selling the story that the temperature record is false and there is no global warming. This is particularly interesting considering the number of paid shills who keep insisting the warming is all natural, or the warming is good for us. How could warming be natural if there is none? How could warming be good for us if there is none? This is merely one simple, shining example of how the paid deniers are liars with the goal of deceiving people. Now, there is another, a editorial written by Tom Harris.

Tom Harris is a paid shill of the fossil fuel industry. He also has strong ties to the tobacco industry. These are both industries with track records of falsifying the scientific record in order to prevent any government or public actions that might be damaging to them. These links include a strong affiliation with the Heartland Institute, which receives considerable funding from the fossil fuel and tobacco industries. (Heartland, by the way, is a major player in the fight to convince people that second-hand smoke is harmless.) Mr. Harris denies his link to these industries, but the evidence is conclusive. Take a look at these postings on Mr. Harris and his affiliations.

http://scholarsandrogues.com/2015/02/16/tom-harris-hypocritical-peddler-of-deceitful-climate-change-editorials/

http://www.desmogblog.com/tom-harris

http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2015/07/tom-harris-paid-shill.html

Part of Mr. Harris’ job, possibly his entire job, is to put false claims in editorials and letters to the editor anywhere he can. In this way, he can promulgate any lie he wants without worrying about being held accountable. After all, he’s entitled to his opinion, even if it is a lie. Mr. Harris has a long record of making false statements. Take a look at his comments from 2006 on Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth documentary.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/16/the-gods-are-laughing-at-tom-h/

A recent posting of his concerns the temperature record and is filled with falsehoods and false arguments. You can see his entire posting here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/

Let’s take a look and see exactly how he goes about lying.

Mr. Harris states, “But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics.” The uncertainty, he claims, makes the data ‘meaningless.’ This, of course, is nonsense and is a clear demonstration of his intent to deceive. Let’s take a closer look.

The NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1)  did an analysis of the temperature record for 2014. Taking into account the uncertainty and assuming all years (1880-2014) in the time series are independent, they found the chance of 2014 being

• Warmest year on record: 48.0%
• One of the five warmest years: 90.4%
• One of the 10 warmest years: 99.2%
• One of the 20 warmest years: 100.0%
• Warmer than the 20th century average: 100.0%
• Warmer than the 1981-2010 average: 100.0%

Wait! There is ‘only’ a 48% chance 2014 actually was the hottest year on record. That sounds like Tom Harris is right. And, there is the lie. It’s the lie of omission. If 2014 wasn’t the hottest, then some other year must be. Take a look at the rest of the data. The chance of 2014 being one of the top ten hottest years is 99.2% (virtually certain) and it is 100% likely it is in the top 20. It is also 100% certain 2014 was hotter than the 20^th century average of the 1981-2010 average. Every year of the 21^st century is in the top sixteen hottest years.

These are facts Tom Harris and other paid deniers fail to mention. The important point is not that 2014 (and soon, 2015) is the hottest year on record, what is important is that every single hottest year ever recorded has occurred since 1997, and they are consistently getting hotter. The data fluctuates from year to year, but the trend is what is important and is unmistakable. Take a look here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/the-most-popular-deceptive-climate-graph/comment-page-3/

Tell us, Mr. Harris, if July 2015 wasn’t the hottest month ever recorded, why didn’t you discuss the trend? But, it gets worse. Mr. Harris in no way demonstrated July 2015 was not the hottest month on record. In fact, he made a clear-cut argument it is bad and could be much worse than claimed. The reason for this is deniers always take the margin of error the way they want and it doesn’t work that way. Taking the data you want is known as ‘cherry picking’ and is one of the biggest and most common lies deniers use.

The margin of error is a plus-or-minus. When they say the data is ± .14 degrees, that means the range, with great probability, is between .14 degrees less and .14 degrees greater. So, in fact, if there is a chance the temperature was less, there is an equal chance it was greater. In other words, there is a reasonable chance July 2015 was even hotter than reported. The data is conclusive – the temperature trend is upward and the planet is getting hotter. This is true even if July 2015 isn’t the hottest month ever. Funny how Mr. Harris didn’t mention that. Was that because he doesn’t want you to know? I mean, he wouldn’t be doing his job if you end up thinking for yourself. By the way, the temperature rise over the 20^th century average is many times the size of the margin of error. Strange, Mr. Harris didn’t mention that either. Another lie of omission on his part.

He then tries to make his case by personal attacks on the climate scientists. “Such misrepresentations are now commonplace...,” and “Scientists within the agencies know that this is dishonest.” These are the kind of statements you can expect from paid shills and have no value in the discussion. First, these are not ‘misrepresentations’ and they are in no way ‘dishonest.’ The most proper way to report the data is to provide the most likely value along with the amount of uncertainty. Mr. Harris proved himself they actually do this by quoting the data. Please Mr. Harris, show us how reporting the data with appropriate uncertainties is in any way ‘dishonest’ or a ‘misrepresentation.’

His deception continues when he states, “After all, there is very little data for the 70 percent of Earth’s surface that is ocean. There is also little data for mountainous and desert regions, not to mention the Antarctic. Much of the coverage is so sparse that NASA is forced to make the ridiculous claim that regions are adequately covered if there is a temperature-sensing station within nearly 750 miles.”
Why is this a deception? Again, Mr. Harris is engaging in the lie of omission, one of his favorite tactics. What Mr. Harris doesn’t want you to know is that the entire planet is measured every day by satellite instruments. That data is in addition to the ground stations he mentions which provide ground-truthing. This satellite data allows us to obtain the temperature at various levels of the atmosphere as well as the land and ocean surface. His claims about the distance between data points is entirely false. Why didn’t he mention the satellite data?

Mr. Harris then writes a peculiar paragraph, beginning with “In their award winning book…” I can find no reference that says Taken By Storm has won any awards. In fact, the only reviews I found soundly blasted it. Take a look at this one example (there’s plenty more):

http://wellbeing.ihsp.mcgill.ca/library/takenByStormReview.html

Maybe they got an award from the Heartland Institute. That would be a true statement of its credibility (i.e., none). In any event, Mr. Harris goes on with a definition of temperature. Yeah. So, what? Temperature measures the amount of energy contained in something. I’m not sure what point he’s trying to make and I don’t think he does, either. That’s usually the case when deniers show and try to fool people into thinking they know something about science.

Then, he continues the lies, stating, “Even if enough accurate surface temperature measurements existed to ensure reasonable planetary coverage (it doesn’t).” We already covered this one. Yes, Mr. Harris, there are accurate enough records. But, he doesn’t stop there and continues with complaints about how the data processing methods aren’t known. First, the specific method isn’t as important as ensuring you use the same method on the entire data base. What we want to see is the trend over time. Again, Mr. Harris has committed the lie of omission. The truth is four agencies around the world and the Berkeley Earth Project all use different methodologies (and even different data bases), but come up with essentially the same results. Again, the lie of omission.

Mr. Harris then makes one of the most egregious statements I have ever seen him make and he has a record of whoppers. He states,

“Even if you could calculate some sort of meaningful global temperature statistic, the figure would be unimportant. No one and nothing would experience it directly since we all live in regions, not the globe. There is no super-sized being straddling the planet, feeling global averages in temperature. Global warming does not matter.” 

Wow! I had to read this several times to make sure I wasn’t misreading it. So, Mr. Harris, we don’t need to worry about all of those silly little things that happen on the other side of the planet because we don’t straddle the planet? Things like massive droughts, war, famine, ISIS, etc. I mean, no one is a ‘super-sized being straddling the planet.’ Of course, when those effects of global warming hit us directly we don’t need to worry about it because it’s just us and there is no ‘super-sized being straddling the planet.’ You know, effects such as mass extinctions, food shortages, hotter summers, more severe winter storms, more extreme weather, higher utility bills, loss of jobs, more flooding, coastal erosion due to sea level rise, and don’t forget the $44 trillion that climate change is expected to cost us.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/18/cost-of-not-acting-on-climate-change-44-trillion-citi.html

Also, notice how Mr. Harris went from saying there is no global warming to saying it doesn’t matter. Which is it? No global warming or it doesn’t matter? You can’t have both.

Once again, the lie of omission. And, this was a huge lie.

Mr. Harris then states, “Future generations are bound to ask why America closed its coal-fueled generating stations, its cheapest, most plentiful source of electric power, and wasted billions of dollars trying to stop insignificant changes in imaginary phenomena.”

No, Mr. Harris, future generations are going to wonder why we debated for so long before acting. They are going to wonder why we didn’t immediately close the fossil fuel plants when we learned their emissions were destroying the ozone layer, causing acid rain, providing the number one source of mercury in the food chain (our food chain), poisoning the air with cancer-causing radioactive debris, poisoning our bodies with particulate matter, and poisoning our water supply with arsenic. And, oh yeah, destroying the world’s environment by causing climate change. They will see we had cheaper, safer energy sources. They will see the science was settled and the world’s scientists were in nearly unanimous agreement on the dangers. Then, they will wonder why we allowed paid shills to lie and deceive without holding them accountable.

The sad part is I don’t know how to answer that. Maybe the time is coming when we will hold them accountable.

More Record Temps in June

The NCDC released their Global Analysis for June this morning. The quick take is that June 2015 was the hottest June ever recorded. The worse news is that this broke the record set only last year - and it did so by .12 degrees C, a huge increase. This past June was .88 degrees C hotter than the 20th century average. It was the fourth highest departure from average ever recorded. The two highest departures occurred this year in February and March, both at .90 degrees C above the long-term average. January 2007 had the third highest departure at .89 degrees C.

Along with March and May, June is the third month to break it's monthly record this year. July 2014 through June 2015 was the hottest 12-month period ever recorded. The record it broke was set just last month. In fact, the 10 hottest 12-month periods have all occurred in the last ten months.

With all of that news, I don't think I need to go into more details. It was hot and getting hotter. Here's the tally to date:

June was the hottest June ever recorded;

May was the hottest May on record;

April was tied for the fourth hottest April on record;

March was the hottest March on record;

February was the second hottest February on record;

January was the second hottest January on record.

So far, 2015 has three hottest months, two second hottest months, and one fourth hottest month ever recorded.


For the last 12 months, the tally is:


June 2015 was the hottest June ever recorded;

May 2015 was the hottest May ever recorded;

April 2015 was tied for the fourth hottest April ever recorded;

March 2015 was the hottest March ever recorded;

February 2015 was the second hottest February ever recorded;

January 2015 was the second hottest January ever recorded;

December 2014 was the hottest December ever recorded;

November 2014 was the 7th hottest November ever recorded;

October 2014 was the hottest October ever recorded;

September 2014 was the hottest September ever recorded;

August 2014 was the hottest August ever recorded;

July 2014 was the fourth hottest July ever recorded;


So, let's see what the score is for the last 12 months: one 7th hottest month, two 4th hottest months, two 2nd hottest months and seven hottest months ever.

And, don't forget, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded.

Onwards and upwards.

What's Warming the World?

Here is an excellent set of graphics from Bloomberg showing the effects of various factors on the climate. It shows many of the factors that people have proposed on this blog as the cause of global warming, including orbital mechanics, solar variability, aerosols (including SO2), deforestation, and volcanic activity. It shows each factor by itself and combined with others. The only thing that matches the increase in global temperature is the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is very nicely done. It won't convince any deniers, of course, but maybe some doubters will see the validity of science over denialism.

Odds of Record Warming

I previously posted about a NOAA statement that said "nine of the ten warmest 12-month periods have occurred within the past two years." I then used some probability calculations to find out just how likely this was and came up with the odds being about 1 in 1.6 x 10^17. Very long odds.

But, a complaint was raised concerning my calculations. The calculations were done correctly, but the premise of the calculations was what was called into question. Namely, I used every month as being random when in fact, given one 12-month period, the next 12-month period (and previous one, as well) would have 11 months in common with it. So, it is not a truly random series. This, the objector said, would make a difference. Once it was pointed out, I agreed and went to another source to help me out - Dr. John Grego of the University of South Carolina.

Dr. Grego and his colleagues did a similar study addressing the fact that all 15 years since the year 2000 have been in the top-20 hottest months. They wanted to know what are the chances of that happening on a random basis and came up with the odds of it happening randomly are 1.5 quadrillion to 1.  This study was the actual inspiration for my posting mentioned above, so I thought this would be a good place to check. Dr. Grego was kind enough to take the time to figure the odds and this is his response:

Hello Dr. Keating--it's straightforward enough to write down the correlation structure for 12-month running means, but trying to account for that in an urn-model probability calculation looked formidable to me.  So I simulated the process instead, while still using an underlying assumption that monthly temperatures were independent normal random variables, which I would consider to be a naive, but instructive approach.  I appended R code at the end of this email. Basically, I generated 1632 (136X12) independent normal random variables, computed their 1621 (1632-11) running averages, sorted them from highest to lowest and then tallied how many of the highest 10 (those with rankings from 1612 to 1621) occurred in the last two years (indicated by an index ranging from 1598 to 1621).  I first ran this simulation 1000 times, then 100000, then 1000000.  I thought I might need to run much larger simulations if probabilities of some of the events below turned out to be very small, but that proved unnecessary.

The table lists each of the possible outcomes (0 of the 10 hottest months occurred in the last two years, 1 of the 10 hottest months occurred in the last two years,...,10 of the 10 hottest months occurred in the last two years) and the proportion of simulations for which each outcome occurred for each of the three simulation series I ran—results were surprisingly consistent as I upped the number of runs.  As you can see, the proportion of extreme events is not as small as one might think, apparently driven by the very high autocorrelation in the series of running averages.  Note how even a single value in the top 10 is quite small, but then the distribution is quite heavy-tailed and dies off very slowly--almost linearly!

(Listed proportion for test simulations of 1000, 100000, 1000000)
>  0 .92600, .90819, .90902
>  1 .03900, .03889, .03854
>  2 .01000, .02112, .02051
>  3 .01200, .01241, .01262
>  4 .00700, .00778, .00794
>  5 .00200, .00517, .00488
>  6 .00200, .00295, .00300
>  7 .00200, .00187, .00186
>  8 .00000, .00088, .00090
>  9 .00000, .00051, .00051
> 10 .00000, .00023, .00022
>
>
> --John Grego
>
> #Backward-looking 12-month running average--10000 simulations.
>
> a=filter(x,rep(1/n,n), sides=1)
> return(a)
> }
> tx=1632          #1632=136*12
> nhot=NULL
> for(nrep in 1:10000){
> x=rnorm(tx)
> ax=runavg(x)
> sort_ax=order(ax,na.last=NA)
> nhot[nrep]=sum(order(ax)[1612:1621]>=1598)
> }
> table(nhot)

Essentially, what Dr. Grego did was to run the data and determined just how many times this event actually occurred. The three columns demonstrate the outcome when running it 1000 times, 100,000 times and 1 million times. Comparing the columns, we can see the numbers for each occurrence is converging on some percentage. For the case of nine of the ten warmest months occurring on a random basis in a 24-month period the percentage is converging on .00051. 

That means, the odds of this happening on a random basis are about 51 out of 100,000 (about 1 in 2000).

Those odds are certainly not as bad as the 1 in 1.6 x 10^17 I previously calculated, but they are sufficient to demonstrate this record could not possibly be random.

New England Breaks Heat Records

With all of the heavy snow the Northeast saw this winter, there were all sorts of pundits mocking global warming and climate change. This really demonstrated their ignorance and its easy to see why by asking a pretty simple question: How did all of the water get high in the atmosphere?

Have you ever shoveled snow? If you haven't, I can tell you it is incredibly hard work. Snow is heavy. Now, imagine square mile after square mile covered in feet of snow and you have the job of shoveling it all. In fact, you have to shovel it to a height of a few miles. No one would disagree this would take a lot of energy. So, where did all of that energy come from? (Think about it. That was not a rhetorical question.)

Of course, facts and science are not the strong points of global warming deniers. Now, the facts are biting them again and they have all run for cover. The temperatures in the Northeast (yes, the SAME Northeast) have set records for May. Take a look:

Source: NCDC

Just for the fun of it, let's do a count.

Maryland had the fourth hottest May ever recorded.

Delaware, New Jersey, and Maine all had the third hottest Mays ever recorded.

New York and Vermont had the second hottest Mays ever recorded.

Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire all set records with the hottest Mays ever recorded.

All total, 15 states in the East were much warmer than average.

That's a lot of heat.

So, where are all of those pundits now? Oh, yeah. I forgot.

Deniers melt in the heat.

Guest Submission: Reduction in UK GHG Emissions

2015 Shows a Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the UK

A step closer towards the Kyoto Protocol

By 2020, the United Kingdom needs to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions if it wants to respect the Kyoto Protocol Treaty. As a reminder, the greenhouse gas emissions effect concerns the fact that certain gases trap the heat in the atmosphere, which affects the global water and air temperature. Those main gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride.

Nowadays, recent statistics have proven that the UK is currently meeting its target, according to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). As an example, in 2013 the emissions of greenhouse gases have decreased by 23.6% compared to 1990. 

This was mainly caused by a 15% carbon dioxide emissions reduction in the energy sector. It could be explained as the energy sector changed its electricity generation sources from fossil fuels - coal and natural gas combustion- towards more renewable sources such as wind energy or renewable fuels combustion - i.e. wood.

In 2014, this general tendency was confirmed, accounting an additional decrease of 8.4% of greenhouse gas emissions, due to a 9.2% reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Those results represent a big success for the government, when it was known that in 2013, 82% of the UK greenhouse gas emissions concerned carbon dioxide.

2014 has also been a good year for the residential sector that accounted a decrease of up to 16.6% of natural gas consumption- mainly oil and propane- for space heating and cooking. Thus, British households showed a preference in investing in clean and renewable resources such as wood-pellets boilers, biomass boilers, solar panels, heat pumps and so on. Those investments are nevertheless highly incentivized by the UK government through the Feed-in Tariff, the Green Deal and other green grants allowing UK citizens to receive some financial help in investing in green resources.

Except 2010 and 2012 when the weather was particularly cold in the UK, there has been since 2004 a downward trend in greenhouse gas emissions. Hence, we can forecast positive expectations for the upcoming years trend. The Kyoto Protocol would thus be honored if it stops as planned in 2020.

From July 2015 on, statistics will be available on the Office for National Statistics (ONS) website comparing the first half of 2015 with the past 25 years (starting in 1990).

Find out more information about green energy sources on www.greenmatch.co.uk

Climate Change Deniers Validate 'No Hiatus' Paper

The term 'hiatus' is something I really dislike because it has been seized by climate change deniers who reject science as 'proof' global warming is not real without bothering to discuss what was meant by a hiatus. Global warming clearly continued with 9 of the top 10 and 15 of the top 20 hottest years ever recorded occurring since the year 2000. It is impossible for this to have occurred randomly. It has had to occur for a reason. Also, the data being discussed was the surface temperature and did not include the 93% of the warming, which takes place in the oceans. So, no, global warming didn't stop. However, it is true the data showed a slowing of the surface temperature rise. This has been the subject of a lot of research. The Pacific Ocean has been believed to be the place where most of this warming was going but it was difficult to identify exactly where. Recent research has indicated it has been moving from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean. As the Pacific Ocean warmed, currents and easterly winds pushed the warm water to the west and into the Indian Ocean. Seventy percent of the heat absorbed by the oceans over the last decade appears to be stored in the Indian Ocean.

Now, as has been widely reported, scientists at NOAA have examined the historical data and have determined the so-called hiatus never occurred.Their paper, appearing in the journal Science, states "There is no discernible ... decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century."

The problem has been biases in the data.You don't just collect data from some instrument and run with it. You have to calibrate an instrument to determine exactly what it is measuring. Then the data must be examined to ensure the instrument continues to work the same over time. Additionally, you have to take into account where you have data and where you don't. In the case of climate science, you want to take into account the fact we have lots of data from the land surfaces, but not the oceans. These are just a few of the issues with data. The NOAA scientists have discovered when you take all of this into account the 'hiatus' disappears. Surface warming has continued at the rate of about two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit per decade (about .1 degree C per decade) since the 1950s.  Take a look:

Source: NOAA

It is encouraging the source for the perceived slowdown has been determined - it apparently never happened. However, we need to keep in mind this is the first report and it has to be validated by other scientists. Strangely enough, the paid fossil fuel shills are the first to provide validation of these results. Who, but the most-biased new organization of all, Fox News, would be in a rush to report that the results are being questioned by "climate scientists." Just take a look at who they quote as questioning these results - Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, John Christy - all former scientists that have rejected science in favor of taking money from the fossil fuel industry. Some of these people have been caught falsifying data on multiple occasions and producing fraudulent results that had to be retracted.

So, how does this qualify as validating the results? Very simple. It will take real scientists months to years to examine this paper and attempt to duplicate the results. All of these former scientists rushed out and criticized the results after a mere week. But, there is no possible way for them to have determined if the results are valid or not. The only explanation for their rushed criticisms is that the denier lobby is concerned with this paper. And, if they are concerned, that indicates the results are very persuasive.This is a true indicator the results are valid.

You have to wonder, why are the deniers in such a rush to try and discredit the paper? Probably because they know it proves their denier claims are not valid.  So, they have no choice but to rush to the attack, even though it is not possible for them to have examined the results.

WUWT? and Monckton Caught Lying

Anthony Watts and Christopher Monckton, two of the most notoriously deceitful deniers, have been caught lying - and it was their own work that did it.

Anthony Watts is a TV weatherman (not even a meteorologist) who runs the anti-science blog Watts Up With That? and has been famous for a considerable time for the way he uses false arguments and false data to deceive people about global warming and climate change. He receives funds from the Heartland Institute, which means he is funded by the fossil fuel industry. Here is what I said about Watts in a submission to the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge:

Watts is one of the people that I automatically reject as a source of information - and for very good reason. First, he receives funds from The Heartland Institute. This is an organization whose very own internal documents show they fund people for the directed purpose of undermining climate science. That is enough for me to reject him and I use that standard on a routine basis. Anyone associated or affiliated with Heartland in any way is not a credible source. 

But, there is more. My take of the evidence is he fabricates his results. That would be consistent with being affiliated with Heartland. Take a look at a review of some of his work here.

Finally, consider this: When Richard Muller questioned the global average temperature results from the international teams, he set up his own team to examine the question using completely different data. Watts said this:

"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."

But, when the Berkeley Earth team confirmed the results of the international teams, Watts rejected those results and was quoted by the NY Times:

"Mr. Watts ... contended that the study's methodology was flawed because it examined data over a 60-year period instead of the 30-year-one that was the basis for his research and some other peer-reviewed studies. He also noted that the report had not yet been peer-reviewed and cited spelling errors as proof of sloppiness."

Really!!?? Global warming isn't real because there were some spelling errors???!!!!

For a very revealing video on Watts, I recommend The video that Anthony Watts does not want you to see: The Climate Denial “Crock of the Week.” It is an amazing video and article on Watts. It truly shows just how anti-science he is.

The other well know anti-science denier, Christopher Monckton, is the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a hereditary title established in 1957 for the current Lord's grandfather. That part is true, many (if not all) of his other claims are false. He has made claims to being a member of the House of Lords, but he isn't. He has claimed to have been a science adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, but he was actually an economics adviser. At one time, he claimed to have won the Nobel Prize in Physics, but when he was quickly caught in this lie he claimed it was all a joke. He has made claims to having discovered the cure for many diseases, including Graves' disease, AIDS, MS, the flu and the common cold. His education consists of a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism, so he has no scientific qualifications, but he continues to present himself as an expert on the subject. Here is a video of a real scientist responding to some of Monckton's claims. It is a narrated PowerPoint presentation and is about 73 minutes long. Here are some very well made videos about Monckton and his claims:

Monckton Bunkum Part 1 - Global cooling and melting ice 

Monckton Bunkum Part 2 - Sensitivity 

Monckton Bunkum Part 3 - Correlations and Himalayan glaciers 

Monckton Bunkum Part 4 -- Quotes and misquotes

Monckton bunkum Part 5 -- What, MORE errors, my lord? 

 

What we have established is Watts and Monckton are two people who have no climate science qualifications, but have managed to promote themselves as being smarter than all of the climate scientists in the world combined. How did they do this? Through lies, false data, false arguments and with the help of fossil fuel money. Is it any wonder that they would get tangled up in their own lies?

 

Well, it's happened. 

 

Monckton and Watts have teamed up for years to produce graphics showing there has been no global warming. See here for one example. This particular lie consists of the ever popular claim that there has been no warming for [insert number here] years. Of course, this is a total falsehood and I have addressed it many times. Here's one example. Certainly, one of the reasons this claim is false is because it selectively picks the pertinent years to use. I showed examples in the referenced link of how even a small change in the selected years makes a huge difference.

 

But now, they have really been caught in the lie. OutOnALimb of the Daily Kos has published an excellent piece revealing how they cherry pick their data. It turns out they have published numerous versions of this plot and they have changed the start and end dates to get the desired results! What's up with that?

Monckton has been forced to change his end points to keep getting the desired results. The reality is, if his claim of no warming was true, there would be no need to change the end points.

So, if there is no need to change their endpoints, why did they? The reason is because the data does not support their claims. In other words, they have been lying about it.

What's up with that?